<HTML><HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=Windows-1252" http-equiv=Content-Type></HEAD>
<BODY
style="WORD-WRAP: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space"
dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT-STYLE: normal; DISPLAY: inline; FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: small; FONT-WEIGHT: normal; TEXT-DECORATION: none"></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT-FAMILY: 'Calibri'; COLOR: #000000; FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> You started by indicating that this was an issue with registry
accuracy, but the fact is that </DIV>
<DIV> when the purported sale is contrary to the policy, the
registry still accurately reflects the </DIV>
<DIV> actual party with the rights to the unique registry entry,
since the rights only change when</DIV>
<DIV> done in accordance with policy set by the
community. Whether something is being routed</DIV>
<DIV> on the Internet or not is an entirely different matter, as
shown operationally from time to time</DIV>
<DIV> by the various route leaks that occur.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> The registry is accurate as long as it follows the
community-developed policy; if you don't </DIV>
<DIV> like the policy, then work to change it. Regardless, the
registry accurately reflects what</DIV>
<DIV> the community indicates it should under the
circumstances.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Thanks,</DIV>
<DIV>/John</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Hi John,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>The community has loudly and recently spoken about which goal of RFC-2050
is universally accepted.</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>That goal is registration. If you want to continue to maintain the fallacy
that the entities which are actually routing and using the addresses as their
own, after legally purchasing those rights, are not the ones who should be
listed in the Whois registry, then you are standing the goal of registration on
its head by simply defining all the entries as accurate, in the same way the
authorities responded to Galileo (“and yet it moves”), by asserting the primacy
of words over reality.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Nevermind the propriety of maintaining deliberately false abuse contact
information for purposes of maintaining a goal of conservation which was
designed in the Free Pool Era and which is not appropriate in a world with a
transfer market.</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>If the needs requirement is driving transactions underground, we are asked
here to prioritize goals. I argue that the goal of conservation is lower than
the goal of registration, has always been so, and with the advent of a pricing
paradigm which naturally supports conservation, it is foolish of stewards to
maintain one practice in support of a lesser goal in the face of a negative
impact on the primary goal.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Regards,</DIV>
<DIV>MIke</DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BODY></HTML>